Featured Articles

European Magazine Interviews James Edwards

I granted an interview to a magazine last week that will available in European newsstands when it goes to press in a few days. Below is a transcript of the Q and A. – James

Magazine: Mr. Edwards, these days America is an exciting field of political observation, but first of all, let’s talk about you and your radio program The Political Cesspool. For years you have been highly political, for example, you campaigned for the presidential candidate Pat Buchanan and also hosted him on your show. So, please, introduce yourself and The Political Cesspool – can you sketch for our readers the history of it and the concept behind?

James Edwards: I am an advocate for European Americans.

On a personal level I am a husband. I have a wife. I have three children.

The radio program was founded in 2004 to express ideas and facts suppressed in the main stream (“System”) media and to give an audience to those who are excluded, who because of their views are effectively silenced.

It is important that someone – even in a small way – tells the truth in contradiction of the System narrative. I am known for discussing matters of faith, heritage and racial reality.

Over the course of the past decade, my work on the radio has been the subject of interest in hundreds of newspaper and magazine publications, as well as television and other radio broadcasts around the world.

In 2016, I was listed alongside Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter as one of the “Top 20 Right Wing media fixtures” responsible for Donald Trump. I was later specifically named by Hillary Clinton as one of the “extremists” who would shape our country in a Trump administration.

My first book, Racism Schmacism: How Liberals Use the “R” World to Push the Obama Agenda, was published in 2010.

Magazine: How would you describe the media landscape in the USA? What idea should we have of the situation, especially regarding the process of opinion-forming?

JE: The System media displays an unanimity that Goebbels and Stalin could only have dreamed of.

American mainstream media apes and mimics a handful of media giants – The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN. In this way the same line is repeated in the “American” media from top to bottom. Each journalist is his own censor.

Dissent does not exist. It is not tolerated. Opinions are the same. The same stories are put center stage and repeated over and over again. The same stories are excluded and not reported. All reporting and commentary are the same. The American media speaks with a single voice.

Magazine: One could, for example, witness a concerted Trump-bashing by the establishment and how the mainstream media promoted a cancel culture and even instigated polarisation up to public unrest. Are conservatives in the USA capable or even willing to fight left totalitarianism?

JE: So-called “Conservatives” are psychologically unable to fight “left totalitarianism” (as you call it).

“Conservatives” pose no threat to the dominance of the Left.

R.L. Dabney, a great theologian from the American South, said the following about “conservatism” in the 1800s:

Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.

Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.

That was true in Dabney’s day and is twice as true now.

Magazine: What is your analysis of the election result and can you give a forecast of what the Biden presidency will bring to the USA?

JE: The surprising thing about the election is the large number of votes – almost 50% – Trump won.

Trump was subjected to Systematic media vilification of the vilest, most unscrupulous and shrill kind for 4 years. Did a single newspaper, radio or television station in America endorse him?

He was outspent by Biden by a factor of 4 to 1.

His supporters were censored and silenced on social media. Even the President himself was eventually censored by Twitter.

The capitalists and the labor unions were against him.

He was opposed by the clergy of most of the churches.

Despite all of this Trump got about 48% of the counted vote and a little higher percentage of the cast vote.

Trump’s showing in the face of these head winds is a very encouraging sign that Whites are increasingly thinking for themselves.

Here’s what I expect from Biden:

Substantial increase in immigration – both legal and illegal. Amnesty and family reunification for illegal aliens. Bemused tolerance of illegal immigration.

Government violation of civil liberties in an effort to suppress dissident speech. FBI harassment of Whites who oppose the System agenda. Crony capitalism.

Corruption as seen in the history of influence peddling by Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

Higher taxes on small businessmen and professionals. Transfers of wealth from White Americans to other groups, possibly including “reparations” to Blacks whose ancestors were slaves 6 generations ago.

In foreign policy a reversal of Trump’s efforts to withdraw from failed interference in the Middle East.

Revival of the civil war in Syria with American support. Possible intervention in Syria. Confrontation with and provocation of Russia.

All this and more.

Magazine: It seems that America is becoming quite balkanised and increasingly a criminal ghetto (autonomous zones) in the metropolitan areas of blue states. Could secession for Republican states of still White majority be an option? Can the GOP be expected to help in this regard?

JE: America is irreversibly balkanized. The United States is occupied by several competing and hostile nations. A White European nation, an African-American nation, a Jewish nation, an Hispanic nation, an Asian nation, and so on.

We must break up and the sooner the better. The optimum outcome would be a peaceful separation such as that presided over by Gorbachev when the Soviet Union disintegrated with very minor loss of human life.

The GOP is hopeless as a remedy. The GOP will not support secession. Now that Trump is gone expect to see a stampede of Republican leaders to support immigration and other anti-White polices.

Fortunately, demographics will soon cause the GOP to fade away and cease to distract people’s attention.

Magazine: The slogan “Make America Great Again” brings about the question of how to interpret “greatness” with regard to America’s international reputation. That, in turn, depends essentially on the geopolitical ambitions in which the USA is often seen as an imperialist hegemon. Do you think a strategical shift towards an attitude of more non-interventionism would improve America´s international relations?

JE: In foreign relations we need to return to a policy of non-intervention in other nations’ affairs. We need to mind our own business for a change.

Imperialistic interventions need to stop.

And, yes, this would be conducive to better relations and good for the world and good for us.

Magazine: In the recent times, the issue of trade conflicts frequently dominate the news. Did an overstrained zeal of globalisation reveal its damages regarding regio-economical substance and what does that mean for economic nationalism – is this term becoming a synonym for de-globalisation?

JE: The “American” government has facilitated and supported the “de-industrialization” of the country. Biden has been a strong advocate of globalism.

When the Coronavirus hit earlier this year, Americans did not have the ventilators or the masks the government claimed were needed to treat virus victims or to curb its spread because production of medical supplies had been outsourced to China. China decided to keep such things for itself.

No nation can long exist without producing within inside its borders all critical products necessary to its independent existence.

Is it “anti-Semitic” to say there is war on Christmas?

Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on December 26, 2019.

Dan Rosenberg, writing in the Canadian Jewish News, claims that it’s “anti-Semitic” to say that there’s a war on Christmas. He also says that “terms such as ‘New York lawyers (and bankers),’ and ‘Hollywood culture’ refer to Jews. When people speak of the ‘secularists’ and ‘internationalists’ who are behind conspiracies like the War on Christmas, they are also referring to Jews.” And I suppose any mentions of globalists, George Soros’s influence, or the Israel Lobby are similarly off limits. In fact, for the likes of Rosenberg (and pretty much every Jew with a high position in the media), any mention that Jews are an elite or have any influence at all (or at least not any influence that is not utterly benign and good for everyone) is horrifying and utterly irrational.

Activists like Rosenberg are not limited by having to deal with actual data and facts. It’s simple. They can claim anything they want because any assertion that Jews have anything to do with changing Christian culture of America is automatically labeled as evil.

So what evidence does Rosenberg come up with?

The idea of the War on Christmas started with one of the founding fathers of American anti-Semitism: automaker Henry Ford. Back in the 1920s, he published a newsweekly called the International Jew. It frequently featured blatantly bigoted accusations such as, “Last Christmas, most people had a hard time finding Christmas cards that indicated in any way that Christmas commemorated someone’s birth.… People sometimes ask why three million Jews can control the affairs of 100 million Americans. In the same way that 10 Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 Christian pupils.”

In modern times, Fox News has been airing segments such as Bill O’Reilly’s 2016 “Naughty or Nice” list, which praised businesses that use “Merry Christmas” and condemned others that say “Happy Holidays.”

That’s it. No heavy lifting required. Of course, it ignores Eli Plaut’s academic book A Kosher Christmas which proudly claims, in the words of a reviewer:

Jews have been the vanguard of an effort to “transform Christmastime into a holiday season belonging to all Americans,” without religious exclusivity.  The most important Jewish mechanisms of secularization are comedy and parody, for laughter undermines religious awe.  Take, for example, Hanukkah Harry from “Saturday Night Live”, who heroically steps in for a bedridden Santa by delivering presents from a cart pulled by donkeys named Moishe, Hershel, and Shlomo.  Remarkably, Hanukkah Harry has emerged as a real Santa-alternative for many American Jews.  Plaut sees such things not as attempts at assimilation but as an intentional subversion of Christmas traditions.  “Through these parodies,” he writes, “Jews could envision not having to be captivated by the allure of ubiquitous Christmas symbols.”  And it isn’t just Jews: for Americans in general, Jewish parody helps ensure that Christmas “not be taken too seriously” and that the celebrations of other traditions “be accorded equal respect and opportunity.”

As I note in my comment, “there seem to be two messages here. One is the message of subversion utilizing ridicule among other methods. The other is that Jews are seen as high-mindedly making Christmas  ‘into a holiday season belonging to all Americans.’ The end result is that Christmas is not ‘taken too seriously’ and the Christian religious aspect central to the traditional holiday is de-emphasized.”

So is it “blatantly bigoted” to make claims such as that Jews have been instrumental in getting Christianity removed from the public square? Of course not. In Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique I noted: “One aspect of the Jewish interest in cultural pluralism in the United States has been that Jews have a perceived interest that the United States not be a homogeneous Christian culture. As Ivers (1995, 2) notes,

Jewish civil rights organizations have had an historic role in the postwar development of American church-state law and policy.” In this case the main Jewish effort began only after World War II, although Jews opposed linkages between the state and the Protestant religion much earlier. … The Jewish effort in this case was well funded and was the focus of well-organized, highly dedicated Jewish civil service organizations, including the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL. It involved keen legal expertise both in the actual litigation but also in influencing legal opinion via articles in law journals and other forums of intellectual debate, including the popular media. It also involved a highly charismatic and effective leadership, particularly Leo Pfeffer of the AJCongress.

But, since Rosenberg focuses on Henry Ford, let’s take a look at what Ford’s The International Jew (TIJ)had to say (see my review). This was around 1920, well before the post-World War II era when Jewish influence crescendoed. The International Jew had a lot to say about Jewish efforts to eradicate the idea that America ought to be a Christian culture. Rosenberg writes that any mention of “Hollywood culture” is an unacceptable reference to Jews. Ford’s writers were well aware of this:

TIJ notes that to advocate censorship is construed as anti-Semitism: “Reader, beware! if you so much as resent the filth of the mass of the movies, you will fall under the judgment of anti-Semitism” (2/12/1921).

But, after noting that “90% of the production is in the hands of a few large companies, 85% of which “are in the hands of Jews” (2/12/1921), there was enough resentment about the movies that in fact attempts to control Hollywood were created shortly thereafter:

TIJ is careful to note that its concerns with the moral messages in movies are not idiosyncratic but part of a larger kulturkampf between the movie industry and large segments of the American public: “In almost every state there are movie censorship bills pending, with the old ‘wet’ and gambling elements against them, and the awakened part of the decent population in favor of them; always, the Jewish producing firms constituting the silent pressure behind the opposition” (2/12/1921). Indeed, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, headed by Will H. Hays, was created in 1922 in response to movements in over thirty state legislatures to enact strict censorship laws, and the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph I. Breen, was launched in response to a campaign by the Catholic Legion of Decency (Gabler 1988). TIJ’s reservations about the moral content of movies was indeed widely shared among the American public.

The effectiveness of these organizations in influencing the content of Hollywood culture lasted until the 1960s’ counter-cultural revolution, a social transformation, that as argued in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique, was the product of a new Jewish-dominated elite that remains dominant today. Moreover, “the assertions of TIJ are congruent with recent studies indicating that Jews remain in control of the movie industry and that the movies often portray Christians and Christianity negatively and Jews and Judaism positively (e.g., Medved, 1992/1993; MacDonald, 2002a).” For recent examples, see Edmund Connelly’s updated War on Christmas series.

As also noted in the quote above from The Culture of Critique, TIJ was also well aware of Jewish influence in removing Christianity from the public square:

Besides the cultural influences described above, TIJ devotes a great deal of attention to the Jewish political campaigns against public expressions of Christianity and for official recognition of the Jewish religion (e.g., recognizing Jewish holidays). “The St. Louis Charity Fair in 1908 planned to remain open on Friday evening; a great outcry; did the managers of that fair mean to insult the Jews; didn’t they know that the Jewish Sabbath began on Friday night?” (6/04/1921). TIJ presents a history of Jewish activism against public expressions of Christianity based on Kehillah records [see TIJ‘s account of the Kehillah], beginning with an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights and culminating in 1919–1920: “In this year the Kehillah was so successful in its New York campaign that it was possible for a Jewish advertiser in New York to say that he wanted Jewish help, but it was not possible for a non-Jewish advertiser to state his non-Jewish preference. This is a sidelight both on Jewish reasonableness and Jewish power” (3/12/1920). “The Jews’ interference with the religion of the others, and the Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the United States is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today” (3/21/1920).

Indeed, the focus of Jewish activism was that the United States was not a Christian civilization but an “unshapen mass of potentiality”:

Based on pronouncements of Jewish organizations and intellectuals, TIJ makes the important point that Jews promote “one of the dangerous doctrines being preached today” that “the United States is not any definite thing as yet, but that it is yet to be made, and it is still the prey of whatever power can seize it and mold it to its liking. It is a favorite Jewish view that the United States is a great unshapen mass of potentiality, of no particular character which is yet to be given its definite form. . . . We are not making Americans; we are permitting foreigners to be educated in the theory that America is a free-for-all, the prize of whatever fantastic foreign political theory may seize it” (3/05/1921). This comment on Jewish attitudes fits well with a great deal of evidence that Jews have consistently opposed the notion that the U.S. has any ethnic overtones or that it is a European or Christian civilization (see MacDonald, 1998/2002, Ch. 7). …

What strikes the reader of TIJ is its portrayal of Jewish intensity and aggressiveness in asserting its interests. Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic efforts to change that culture (see also MacDonald 1998b, 2002b). From the perspective of TIJ, the United States had imported around 3,500,000 mainly Yiddish speaking, intensely Jewish immigrants over the previous 40 years. In that very short period, Jews had had enormous effect on American society.

Fundamentally, TIJ was correct in all of its important assertions. I conclude:

Mainstream scholarship supports the following contentions of TIJ regarding Jewish influence on the U.S. as of the early 1920s:

  1. Jews had achieved a great deal of economic success, even to the point of dominating certain important U.S. industries.

  2. Jewish organizations had launched highly successful campaigns to remove references to Christianity from U.S. public culture and to legitimize Judaism as a religion on a par with Protestantism and Catholicism.

  3. Jewish organizations had been able to impose their ethnic interests on certain key areas of domestic policy. As TIJ noted, Jews were the main force behind maintaining the policy of unrestricted immigration; by 1920, unrestricted immigration policy had continued nearly 20 years after U.S. public opinion had turned against it (see MacDonald 1998b, Ch. 7). Jews had also shown the ability to have a great deal of influence in the executive branch of the U.S. government, as indicated by their influence in the Wilson administration.

  4. Jews had also been able to impose their ethnic interests in the area of foreign policy despite widespread feelings among the political establishment that the policies advocated by the Jewish community were often not in the best interests of the United States. The main examples highlighted by TIJ were the abrogation of the Russian trade agreement in 1911 and post-W.W.I policy toward Eastern Europe where Jewish attitudes were entirely dictated by their perceptions of the interests of foreign Jews rather than the economic or political interests of the U.S. Jews achieved their goals on these issues despite the views of the Taft Administration on the Russian Trade Agreement and the views of a wide range of military and diplomatic figures that the U.S. should support post-W.W.I Poland as a bulwark against Bolshevism and that Jewish complaints against Poland were exaggerated (see Bendersky 2000).

  5. Jews had been a major force behind the success of Bolshevism and its incredibly bloody reign of terror in the Soviet Union and in the abortive Communist revolutions in Hungary by Kun and Germany by Eisner.

  6. Jews were the main component and by far the most energetic component of the radical left in the United States, a movement that advocated a massive political, economic, and cultural transformation of the U.S.

  7. Jews had attained a substantial influence over the U.S. media via a virtual monopoly on the movie production business, domination of the theater and music businesses, their influence in journalism, ownership of some newspapers, and their ability to apply economic pressure on newspapers because of their importance as advertisers. In turn, the ability of Jews to pressure non-Jewish newspapers depended on Jewish ownership of department stores in major cities. Jews used this media influence to advance their domestic and foreign policy agendas, portray Jews and Judaism positively while portraying Christianity negatively, and promote a sexual morality at odds with the traditional culture of the United States.

In turn, these consequences stemmed from critical features of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy

But for an activist like Rosenberg, all that is necessary is to scream “bigoted,” “anti-Semitic,” and the vast majority of people, unaware of the history of Jewish activism, acquiesce. This is unsurprising because the history of Jewish activism and influence can’t even be discussed in polite circles much less be disseminated in the mainstream media or the educational system.

Or they are well aware of  the Jewish role in transforming the culture of the United States, but they also aware of the Jewish power to ruin their lives.

In short the present situation is an excellent marker of Jewish power in contemporary America. And yes, Christianity remains in their crosshairs.

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan.

The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke by a Serb nationalist in June, 1914, is the perfect example of an event which occasioned events which followed, but did not cause them; the men of Europe’s great powers did not slaughter one another for four years over a political assassination in the Balkans. Rather, the assassination occurred in the context of Russian guarantees to Serbia and German guarantees to Austria, which inevitably brought the Triple Entente into play. A diplomatic game of ‘chicken’ ensued, in which no side was willing to be the first to back down.

When Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, the Russian Tsar, conscious of his Empire’s military backwardness, ordered a partial mobilization. This action was intended merely as a precaution in case of a war that still seemed unlikely. But for the Germans, with their Schlieffen plan requiring utmost speed, the Tsar’s order had the effect of an electric shock. Germany felt it had to mobilize as well. Russia responded two days later by ordering full mobilization. Germany gave Russia an ultimatum; and the Tsar, unwilling to knuckle under, allowed the deadline to pass. Within hours, everyone was involved in a war that none of the parties had originally wanted or intended.

German historians call such a series of events a Betriebsunfall: a quasi-mechanical accident such as might occur in the machinery of a factory. Men were drawn into the gear work and crushed when no one was able to throw the emergency switch in time. It was a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word—a disaster brought on by well-intentioned but flawed men acting rationally under conditions of imperfect knowledge. The consequences are well-known: ten million dead, twenty-eight million more wounded or missing, Communism established in Russia, the Balfour Declaration setting the stage for today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, and the whole crowned by a shameful ‘peace’ treaty that all but guaranteed a future war of German revenge.

Yet, as we can see from newsreel footage of August 1st, the popular reaction to the outbreak was war fever on a scale not seen since the crusades. Europe had been enjoying forty-three years of peace and unprecedented material prosperity, and the young greeted the war as a romantic adventure.

The planned rapid German advance through the Low Countries into Northeast France was unexpectedly halted  in early September—the “Miracle of the Marne”—foiling the Schlieffen plan. On the 13th, the German Army responded by attempting a flanking action around the French lines; the French then rapidly extended their own defensive lines in what became known as the “race to the sea.” Since neither side could dislodge the other, and neither was willing to retreat, soldiers began digging themselves in to their positions—the beginning of trench warfare. By the time winter set in, the pattern of the next four years had been clearly established: a war of attrition involving trivial advances and retreats across a few acres of mud.

But as Christmas approached that year, something unexpected began unfolding. On the frontline sector south of Ypres, Belgium, German troops began decorating the area around their trenches for Christmas Eve. As Wikipedia describes it:

The Germans began by placing candles on their trenches and on Christmas trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols. The British responded by singing carols of their own. The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man’s Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Joint [religious] services were held.

The ceasefire spread to other sectors of the front, with as many as 100,000 men eventually participating. In some areas, soccer games between the belligerents replaced combat.

joyeux-noel

By December 26th, it was over. The authorities got word of the breakdown in discipline and intervened vigorously.

In 2005, an international consortium from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Romania produced a film about the Christmas Truce: Joyeux Noёl. The film opens with scenes of children in French, British and German grade schools reciting rhymed curses they had been taught against the opposing side: the British child’s curse calls for the complete extermination of Germans.

The scene switches to Scotland, where an enthusiastic young man, William, rushes into his local Catholic church breathlessly to announce to his younger brother Jonathan that war has been declared; they are to begin basic training in two days. “At last, something’s happening in our lives,” he rejoices. The priest, Fr. Palmer, looks notably less enthusiastic.

At the Berlin Opera, a performance is interrupted by an officer walking on stage to announce that war has been declared. The lead tenor, Sprink, is quickly called up.

In a French trench, Lieutenant Audebert wistfully looks at a photograph of his pregnant wife moments before being called to lead an assault on the German lines. In the ensuing action, Scottish William is mortally wounded; his brother Jonathan is forced to leave him behind, a psychological trauma from which he never recovers. Audebert’s men pour into a German trench, but as they turn a corner, some one-third of them are mown down by a German machine gun.

Meanwhile, Sprink’s lover, the Danish soprano Anna, receives permission to sing before the Crown Prince of Prussia. Sprink is called back from the front to perform with her, and is impressed with the luxurious comfort in which the German commanders are living. When he returns to the front, Anna insists on accompanying him, determined to sing for the ordinary frontline soldiers as well as the officers at headquarters. (The presence of a woman at the front is poetic license on the filmmakers’ part.)

The German soldiers begin setting up Christmas trees along their trenches, to the bewildered suspicion of the French soldiery. After the singers conclude their first number, a cheer goes up from the Scottish trenches. Fr. Palmer plays the first few bars of another Christmas song on the bagpipes, and Sprink responds by performing the song, climbing out into No Man’s Land. Lieutenant Audebert motions to his men to hold fire. Soon, men are pouring out of the trenches on both sides, sharing food and drinks. Fr. Palmer holds a Christmas Eve Mass for all the men.

On Christmas morning, the officers renew the truce and arrange for exchanging their dead. Dozens of men are buried between the lines. A soccer match ensues. The officers realize the situation is untenable and attempt to restore discipline, but by this time the men are refusing to fire upon each other.

A bundle of soldiers’ letters is intercepted by the French authorities, alerting them to the situation. Fearful of having their war spoiled, they dissolve the division and repost its members to various unaffected sectors of the front. The Germans are transferred to the Eastern front to face the Russians. Fr. Palmer is replaced by a Bishop who preaches a sermon urging new recruits to exterminate German men, women and children.

A major theme of the film is music. Sprink’s superior officer begins by telling him that, being a singer, he is useless as a soldier. Then it is the incongruous presence of music that leads to the unplanned ceasefire. At the end, as the Crown Prince of Prussia informs his men of their punishment, he catches sight of a harmonica. He snatches it away and crushes it beneath his boot heel.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 did not change the course of the war very much. In future years, commanders were successful in suppressing similar occurrences. As the war progressed and especially after poison gas was introduced, soldiers gradually came to see their enemies as less than human, as was the intention of the higher officers on all sides. But it has continued to spark the popular imagination in the near-century since it took place. A Canadian historian has written:

It [was] the last expression of that 19th-century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a gentleman. The ones who survived, who lived to see other Christmases in the war, themselves expressed amazement that this had occurred. The emotions had changed to such a degree that the sort of humanity seen in Christmas 1914 seemed inconceivable.

Joyeux Noёl lost money at the box office, and critics have complained of its “sentimentality.” I suggest seeing it for oneself this Christmas season.

The War on Christmas Updated

A dozen years ago I wrote two essays showing that the War on Christmas in recent times has in fact been conducted by Jews out of their historic hatred of Christ, Christians, and European Whites. Recently, I was a guest on Guide to Kulchur, hosted by Frodi Midjord, and we talked about my 2008 essays “Merry Christmas Movies … NOT!” Today I will update those essays.

Jewish columnist Burt Prelutsky bluntly explained my point in his 2004 column “The Jewish Grinch who Stole Christmas,” beginning with “I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. … Schools are being forced to replace ‘Christmas vacation’ with ‘winter break’ in their printed schedules.” We all know about that, as a whole generation now has become inured to the horrid greeting, “Happy Holidays.”

“How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening?” asks Prelutsky. In plain English, he spells it out: “I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. . . . But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society — it’s been replaced by a rampant anti- Christianity.” Amen to that, brother.

Next, we turn to Prelutsky’s fellow Jew, Neil Gabler, an expert on Hollywood whose 1988 book title alone tells us all we need to know: An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Prelutsky didn’t mention Hollywood in his War on Christmas, so I’ll show how Jews are busy there destroying the spirit and intent of that sacred day for Christians. It’s not pretty, either.

This undermining of the Christian meaning of Christmas began early in America, before and during World War II, but it was subtle enough that few goyim noticed, let alone objected. We had, for instance, the huge hit “White Christmas,” written by Irving Berlin, born ביילין ישראל, or “Israel Beilin” for those who don’t read Hebrew.

Mark Steyn (“A Triumph of Miscegenation,” The Spectator, December 17/24, 1994) light-heartedly described how Jews created a gradual division between religious and secular Christmas symbols, making America a society where “Jesus, Mary and Joseph are for home and for church; Santa, Rudolph and Frosty the Snowman — the great secular trinity — are for everybody.” For instance, “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer,” was first a book created by Robert May in 1939 and a decade later inspired his brother-in-law Johnny Marks to write a song about Rudolph. Both men were Jewish.

Also Jewish were Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn, who together wrote the lyrics

Oh, the weather outside is frightful
But the fire is so delightful
And since we’ve no place to go
Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!

Of course this “compromise” to take Christ out of popular culture was a great victory for Jews, for it allowed the hostility many Jews felt toward a Christian majority to find vent without the Gentiles really noticing. Novelist Philip Roth, however, knew exactly what it meant:

The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ — the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity — and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ — down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely!

Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ’em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus.

In the context of the times, however, such songs were not obviously anti-Christian. It was not until Jews achieved cultural hegemony in the late 1960s that the underlying sentiment of hostility toward Christians in America came out into the open, led first and foremost by the just-mentioned Philip Roth, whose 1969 blockbuster novel Portnoy’s Complaint was shockingly candid about the prevalence of Jewish hatred toward Gentiles. Somehow, few Gentiles (Whites) of the time even noticed, so in an important sense the book served as a litmus test for how explicit Jews in America could be about their contempt for goyim. And that contempt turned out to be immense. Still, it took time for this hostility to emerge, then dominate.

Obviously, “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” were not always ubiquitous during the month of December, nor were real Christmas songs in any way unwelcome. Quite the contrary. Criticism of Christmas was not easily tolerated. For instance, back in 1952, George S. Kaufman appeared on a popular television show one week before Christmas and was asked what he wanted for the holiday. He replied, “Let’s make this one program on which no one sings ‘Silent Night.'” The response from the audience (largely Gentile, one would presume) was fast and furious: Kaufman was removed from the show and exiled from the TV screen for a year thereafter.

Fast-forward to 1982 and the popular Saturday Night Live Show featured a skit called “Merry Christmas, Dammit!” This skit portrayed the relationship between Donny and Marie Osmond, two non-Jewish sibling pop singers, as incestuous, and the Virgin Mary was described as “that virgin chick” in a jazzed-up version of “Silent Night.” Eddie Murphy — in his popular “Gumby” guise — read a children’s story in which Santa tears out the lungs of one of his elves because the elf asked for a sip of Santa’s hot chocolate. He ends the skit by saying “And to everyone out there — a Merry Christmas! And to my producer, my director, my manager, and my lawyer — Happy Hanukkah, boys!” Obviously, sensibilities had changed by then, and the people calling the shots were Jews.

Again, beginning in 1969 and the huge success of Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint, with its lusty protagonist prone to masturbating into pieces of raw liver, we eventually witness a parade of degraded images of excretory functions paired with Christmas imagery. Thus, we had Jewish illustrator Art Spiegelman trying to get this drawing onto the cover of The New Yorker:

Sadly, the drawing was rejected, but Spiegelman and the art editor of The New Yorker (his wife) were able to use the image as their 1993 Christmas card instead. And The New Yorker did run Spiegelman’s Easter cover picture of the Easter Bunny being crucified, but that’s another story.

Jump ahead four years and Santa urinating is upstaged by South Park’s Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo.” In this recurrent theme, Mr. Hankey “emerges from the toilet bowl on Christmas Eve and brings presents to good boys and girls whose diets have been high in fiber. He is especially close to Kyle [a Jewish boy], consoling him during his Christmas-Hanukkah depression and generally appears to help the boys out with something or gives them advice.”

Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror.

Two years later, the more extensive Mr. Hankey version was released as Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics. (A parallel CD of the songs includes the delightful “Merry Fucking Christmas”). Here Mr. Hankey besmirches the faces of children singing Christmas songs. He then introduces us to the next scene, “Christmastime in Hell,” where Hitler is shown crying over his Christmas tree. Later, when Jesus and Santa sing a duet, Santa gets miffed that there are far more songs about Jesus than about him, so he leaves the stage. When Jesus implores him to return, Santa speaks the cheery words, “Aw, fuck you, Jesus!”

This episode is a parody of the Charlie Brown Christmas Special in which everyone yells out “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!” only after Charlie has realized the true meaning of Christmas — which has Christ at its center. In the South Park version, the characters wish the Jewish boy Kyle a Merry Christmas only after he has taught everyone, through Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, that Christmas and Christianity are shit.

I feel compelled here to provide a slightly tangential account of Jewish attitudes toward Christmas, fairly tinged with scatological associations, in order to show that the above representations are not simply generically juvenile creations. To do this, we must scurry over to the Israeli site Haaretz for the skinny – For them, it’s wholly unholy:

Christmas Eve is one of the few occasions when Hasidim refrain from Torah study, do not conduct weddings or go to the mikveh [ritual bath for women]. But they do play chess and work on their bills.

On Christmas Eve, known in Jewish circles as Nitel Night, the klipot (shells) are in total control. The klipot are parasitical evil forces that attach themselves to the forces of good.

According to kabbala (Jewish mysticism), on the night on which “that man” — a Jewish euphemism for Jesus — was born, not even a trace of holiness is present and the klipot exploit every act of holiness for their own purposes.

For this reason, Nitel Night, from nightfall to midnight, is one of the few occasions when Hasidim refrain from Torah study. On this horrific night, they neither conduct weddings nor do they go to the mikveh (ritual bath). An entire folkloric literature has developed around the unusual recreational activities of Nitel Night.

Oh, there’s the usual disclaimer that not all Jews follow this custom, but in three decades of research on Jews I’ve found that it’s simply a truism that Jews have an exceedingly negative view of Jesus, Mary, Christians, and Christmas. No wonder so many spit when passing a church . . . or even spit on Christians themselves in Israel.

But in the Haaretz story, this passage about Kabbalistic toilet paper really stood out:

The Knesset correspondent of the ultra-Orthodox newspaper Hamodia, Zvi Rosen, relates that celebrated Hasidic admorim (sect leaders) would cut a year’s supply of toilet paper for Sabbath use (to avoid tearing toilet paper on Sabbath) on this night. Actually, this disrespectful act has profound kabbalistic significance, because kabbalistic literature extensively discusses Christianity as waste material excreted from the body of the Jewish people.

 

Honestly, I couldn’t make this stuff up. And get this: One of their commandments recommends that they attempt procreation on Friday night, which is a holy time. “Yet on Nitel Night, which has no holiness, it is customary to refrain from observing the commandment, because of the fear that a Jewish child conceived on Jesus’ birthday could become an apostate.”

Gentiles have no idea what they are dealing with when we talk about Jewish ascendency in the creation and control of Western culture. Often, I too simply shake my head.

When I wrote these essays in 2008, I included plenty of links, but a surprising number of them are now dead, so I’ve had to learn to use the Wayback Machine. Still, some sources are beyond locating now, such as Christmas movie reviews by a Jewish individual named Austin Pearl. My links were rock solid in 2008, so I’m going to continue to use Pearl’s Jewish views because they tie together many of the films discussed here.

Pearl gleefully explained his motive for collecting anti-Christmas films: “It’s my wanting to recognize things that are deliberately anti-Christmas. It’s my wanting to take a big you know what on everyone’s Christmas spirit. . . . Each one of them is so anti-Christmas that I want to share them with the world, thereby forcing everyone to realize how liberating it is to rip off the Christmas mind control device and have some laughs in the process.” There is the scatological reference again — “wanting to take a big you know what on everyone’s Christmas spirit.” Clearly we are seeing a pattern emerge.

Humor such as in South Park is juvenile, but in reality it rests upon a long Jewish tradition of hatred of and disrespect for Christmas. Still, it doesn’t really rise to the level of successful cultural subversion. For that, we need to consider a raft of anti- Christmas films. To put this into its proper context, let’s consider the broader circumstances of the modern era. As Kevin MacDonald demonstrates in The Culture of Critique, “The Judaization of the West means that the peoples who created the culture and traditions of the West have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history — surely the prelude to their demise as a culture and as a people.” To being ashamed, we can now add that we Western people — Whites — have been subjected to subliminal conditioning that tries to associate positive Christmas symbols with terrifying experiences, thus subverting the beauty and even worship attached to traditional Christmas images, songs, etc.

While Hollywood Christmas movies were almost exclusively positive in the past, like Christmas songs, they have been stripped of religious meaning — and then turned into visual horror shows. Perhaps the best example of this is Silent Night, Deadly Night.

This is a 1984 slasher film that begins with a young boy named Billy witnessing the murder of his parents by a man dressed as Santa Claus. Billy ends up at St. Mary’s Orphanage, where he is beaten by Mother Superior. Later, morphing memories of his punishment at her hands with images of Santa, Billy grows up to become a killer teenage Santa. At work, for example, he strangles a co-worker with Christmas lights and then dispatches the girl with whom the co-worker was having sex.

After a string of other Santa murders, Billy returns to the orphanage, with the police hot in pursuit. Tragically, they shoot and kill Father O’Brien, a deaf priest dressed as Santa. Sneaking into the orphanage, Billy, dressed as Santa, swings his ax at Mother Superior, but a policeman shoots him down. Imparting his central message, Billy assures viewers, “You’re safe now … Santa Claus… is gone.” Not exactly a happy message at Christmastime.

In 1984, such imagery was still able to rile the public. Siskel and Ebert condemned the film, going “so far as to read the film’s production credits on air, saying ‘shame, shame’ after each one.” Angry mothers protested the movie around the nation, and TriStars Pictures, its distributor, quickly ceased advertising the film.

Silent Night, Deadly Night did have antecedents. Black Christmas was a 1974 movie set in a sorority house during Christmas break. A maniac is making calls from within the house, killing the coeds one by one. The movie also takes every opportunity to pair beloved Christmas songs with chilling scenes, a phenomenon that was later repeated in Gremlins, as we will see.

Another, Christmas Evil (1980), features a delusional Santa stand-in who murders three church-goers in front of a church. (He stabbed one man in the eye with a toy.) Later, while wearing a ragged Santa outfit and being chased by an angry mob, our main character drives his van off a bridge, imagining himself to be Santa in his flying sleigh.

Austin Pearl, our Jewish reviewer, approvingly wrote, “Christmas Evil ruins Christmas unlike any other movie.” In particular, this reviewer liked “all the vividly disturbing images of Santa sprinkled throughout the movie.”

It’s no surprise that Pearl also liked the 2003 Billy Bob Thorton film Bad Santa, which was a concerted ethnic effort to trash Christmas. Jewish director Terry Zwigoff made the film under producers Ethan and Joel Coen for the Disney subsidiary Miramax, run by two Jewish brothers, Bob and the notorious Harvey Weinstein. Billy Bob Thornton starred as the bad Santa of the title, going about his life boozing and swearing with abandon. At one point he has anal sex with an overweight woman in a changing room, while elsewhere he goes to a mall drunk and destroys a reindeer display in a drunken rage. Ho ho ho.

Near the end of this dark film, he is shot by a group of policemen but survives. Despite his obvious guilt in numerous crimes, he is pardoned because “the Phoenix police department [thought that] shooting an unarmed Santa Claus in front of children was more fucked up than Rodney King.”

According to Wikipedia, critics generally liked the film, with one describing it as an “evil twin” of “Miracle on 34th Street,” the inspirational Christmas classic. According to reviewers’ consensus on Rotten Tomotoes, it’s “A gloriously rude and gleefully offensive comedy, Bad Santa isn’t for everyone, but grinches will find it uproariously funny.” No wonder Austin Pearl wrote glowingly that “Bad Santa is perhaps the most subversive, offensive Christmas movie ever made — with Thornton as a truly despicable character who, for once, does not receive a total personality transplant by the movie’s end.”

Director Zwigoff intended this film for impressionable teenagers, the vast majority of whom are, one would assume, Christian.

When asked if he thought the film would do well, Zwigoff answered, “I think it might. Every teenager in America is dying to see this film. Though they won’t be able to get in unless they have a very open-minded parent.” Clearly he was aware of the film’s subversive content.

Two years later came another Jewish-directed anti-Christmas movie. The Ice Harvest, Harold Ramis’s “grisly black comedy/film-noir,” sees Billy Bob Thornton return to a mayhem-filled Christmas. One reviewer intoned that The Ice Harvest “is a must-see for fans . . . in the mood to see one of the worst Christmas Eves in the history of cinema.” Roger Ebert (page has been taken down) was also impressed. “I liked the movie for the quirky way it pursues humor through the drifts of greed, lust, booze, betrayal and spectacularly complicated ways to die.” In other words, Hollywood’s version of Merry Christmas stuff.

Gremlins

In my personal view, the most unsettling Christmas movie was the original Gremlins (1984). Though directed by Joe Dante, Steven Spielberg’s production company Amblin Entertainment released it. TIME magazine characterized the film as being “developed and ‘presented'” by Spielberg and being one of his “children too.” Stylistically, too, this film is completely Spielbergian, beginning with a typical suburban paradise. Snow is on the ground as local residents prepare for Christmas.

The drama begins when protagonist Billy receives a cute “mogwai” from his inventor father, but the creature spawns siblings that are far from full of holiday cheer. On the contrary, they bring violence, mayhem, and death to this otherwise happy time of year. Their mischief is methodically paired with normally positive symbols of Christmas. For instance, when Billy’s mom is home alone making Christmas cookies and listening to Christmas music, she is attacked by a squad of ghoulish gremlins with murder on their minds. After stabbing one through the heart, she dispatches another with a deft push of the blender switch, turning the previously Christmas-cookie-aroma-filled kitchen into a bloodbath.

More blood is added when a gremlin foolishly hides in the microwave. A few minutes on high power and his head delightfully explodes. Retreating to the living room, the mother is literally attacked by the Christmas tree, which is full of gremlins. This conflation of joyful Christian symbols with diabolical evil is a central device to the whole movie.

Another example comes when the police pass by Billy’s neighbor’s house and are greeted by the neighbor, dressed as Santa Claus, running about helplessly as gremlins eat into his brain. Next, Christmas-caroling gremlins arrive at grouchy old Miss Deagle’s door, only to send her flying out the second-floor window of her house in a malfunctioning motorized chair.

I call this movie “most unsettling” because I remember when it came out, and the trailers and ads were specifically aimed at children — young children, as I recall, 4–8 years old. I also recall many tales of parents angrily leading their shrieking children out of theaters because families had been led to believe this was a fun Christmas movie. Tell me if you think the following is fun.

In two scenes I thought were totally extraneous, protagonists Billy and his girlfriend Kate pass a group of Christmas carolers singing “Silent Night,” when Kate suddenly and soberly states that Christmas is a time when “a lot of people get really depressed. . . . While everybody else is opening up their presents, they’re opening up their wrists. It’s true. The suicide rate is always the highest around the holidays.” When she volunteers that she doesn’t celebrate Christmas, Billy asks, “What, are you Hindu or something?” Historically, the non-Christian group in America with mixed feelings toward Christmas is not Hindus, but Jews. Here the mask is in place but the true message is easily discernible. It is Jews who hate Christmas.

Much later in the movie, after the gremlins have wreaked havoc on Kingston Falls, Kate launches into a startling horror story about Christmas, one that seems completely gratuitous since it is independent of the blood-thirsty gremlin theme. Surveying the rubble left by the marauding gremlins, Kate relates how she now has another reason to hate Christmas. It seems that when she was nine, she and her mother were decorating the tree on Christmas Eve, waiting for her father to come home from the office. They waited, but he never came.

Then, four or five days later, as the temperature dropped, Kate went to make a fire. “And that’s when I noticed the smell.” Thinking it was a dead cat or bird, they called the fire department to clean it out, but instead “they pulled out my father. He was dressed in a Santa Claus suit. He’d been climbing down the chimney on Christmas Eve, his arms loaded with presents. He was going to surprise us. He slipped and broke his neck, died instantly. And that’s how I found out there was no Santa Claus.”

Now that you’ve read my account of Gremlins, go back and watch it again. Note the systematic pairing of Christmas songs with things negative, a Christmas tree with violence, Christmas carols with monsters. And of course, not the slightest hint whatsoever that Christmas has anything to do with a religious holiday celebrating a divinity that Christians traditionally believe to be God.

There’s actually a dizzying array of Christmas films available—over 100 since 2010, including 26 horror films—and too many to review here. Not all Christmas movies are subversive—Hollywood is well aware that there is money in appealing to particular audiences, such as viewers of Hallmark or the Lifetime Movie Network. One such is the popular Elf (2003), by screenwriter David Berenbaum and director Jonathan Favreau, who is half Jewish, with Ed Asner starred as Santa, and James Caan as the elf’s biological father. I invite readers to comment about this film and, because of the glut of films, I’ll need to do that with some other Christmas films as well.

 

A recent film that looked highly promising as far as my thesis goes is The Night Before (2015) starring Jewish actors Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, along with Anthony Mackie, who is Black. (This lack of White males fits into my recent photo essay showing how in 2020 Whites males have been almost completely airbrushed out of commercials.) Further, the film is “a successful collaboration between Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg”; the director is Jonathan Levine.

More to the point, reviewer Ben Kendrick strongly suggests that this movie also shows great disrespect for Christmas. The Night Before is “irreverent,” “nor is it a Christmas movie for all audiences” (such as believing Christians, for example?). The film blends “stoner hijinks and holiday spirit.” It is a “raunchy comedy set against a holiday backdrop,” and, in a key description, Kendrick admits that “It’s a surprisingly subversive tale, playing off Christmas movie tropes in unique (and often hilarious) ways.” Again, I need to ask readers to see how this Jewish-inflected film approaches traditional Christmas.

Other films that caught my eye were Black Christmas (2006), a “Canadian-American slasher film,” Four Christmases (2008), The Christmas Chronicles (2018) and Last Christmas (2019). Comments on them are also welcome.

Santa’s Slay

I put aside all of these films, however, when I hit pay-dirt yesterday with the film Santa’s Slay (2005). I’m going to start with Wikipedia’s description:

Santa’s Slay is a 2005 Canadian American Christmas slasher comedy film that stars professional wrestler Bill Goldberg as Santa Claus. The film was written and directed by David Steiman, a former assistant to [Jewish] Brett Ratner; Ratner served as a producer….

On Christmas Eve, the Mason family (played by a cast of all Jewish celebrities in bit roles) is bickering about their wealth and material possessions while eating Christmas dinner when Santa Claus (Bill Goldberg, also Jewish) comes down the chimney and kills them all in various graphic displays of Christmas-themed violence, such as drowning the matriarch Virginia (Fran Drescher) in eggnog, using the star atop a Christmas tree as a ninja star and stabbing the patriarch’s hands to the table with silverware and suffocating him by stuffing a leg of turkey in his mouth. Riding on his sleigh driven by his “hell-deer,” the Buffalo-like Beast, Santa arrives at Hell Township and decimates the locals in various holiday-themed ways. In one of his kills, Santa slaughters the occupants of a local strip club, frequented by Pastor Timmons (Dave Thomas), a crooked minister, who manages to survive the massacre.

Yes, this “gift” was dropped right in my lap as I perused Jewish-created anti-Christmas films. You have to watch this selection of scenes to believe it.

Typical goys are celebrating a traditional Christmas scene with carols and a creche. “Santa” on his sleigh comes through, beheading the statue of Joseph. The actual opening, however, begins with a beautiful rendition of “Joy to The World” against a shot of a well-decorated millionaire’s home, and then zooms into the well-appointed dining room of a large “Gentile” family.

James Caan plays the patriarch, and the whole skit is reminiscent of the typical Hollywood ploy of mocking the goyim, as in the old Caddyshack series. Childishly tasteless and gauche, Caan criticizes the dry turkey, mock praying, “Let it be tender and moist,” to which his wife (played by Fran Drescher) retorts, “Yeah, moist, it’s called foreplay.” Then one family member sodomizes his wife under the table. Lots of laughs. Soon, however, we get bulked-up former wrestler Bill Goldberg as a Viking Santa coming down and through the chimney for some Christmas murder.

More goy mocking comes a little later when Mrs. “Talbot” bullies Jewish Mr. Green at his deli, insisting that he use “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays.” Immediately after this, the miserly biddy is driven off the road by Goldberg in his sleigh, and she dies in a fiery inferno. Ah, revenge.

Surprisingly, however, the attack on Christians doesn’t go much beyond that. Yes, later two Gentile boys dressed in red and green pajamas ask their parents if they “can open our mother f**king presents now?” When they open the presents, there are explosions and the boys’ heads are blown off, to which goy Grandma slowly replies “F**k.” In the milieu of 2005, this does not rise to the level of high offense, let alone blasphemy. In addition, Jesus Christ is never mentioned, let alone attacked.

I can’t explain why this is. By 2005, Jews held such a lock on American culture that they could pretty much do what they wanted, as we saw in Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film Inglourious Basterds. Though director Tarantino is not Jewish, Eli Roth is, and as Sergeant Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz, he executes Nazis with his baseball bat. Roth famously said that such filmic revenge amounted to “almost a deep sexual satisfaction of wanting to beat Nazis to death, an orgasmic feeling. My character gets to beat Nazis to death. That’s something I could watch all day.” In addition, Lawrence Bender, one of the producers, told Tarantino that “As your producing partner, I thank you, and as a member of the Jewish tribe, I thank you, motherf**ker, because this movie is a f**king Jewish wet dream.”

Screenwriter and director David Steiman, et al. could have accomplished something similar with Santa’s Slay but for some reason they didn’t even come close. Instead, we ended up with a stupidly juvenile and unprofessional film that was a real chore to watch. Given the coarse level our society has fallen to this century, though, it is hardly surprising that untalented reviewers could write that Santa’s Slay was “simultaneously vulgar and wholesome, stupid and satirical, violent and lighthearted.” Or that “overall it is just a fun, brainless movie that has a ton of violence in it.” Another wrote that “Admittedly, the film doesn’t quite keep up the relentless pace the entire time, but it’s mostly one hell of a slay ride, full of cheesy dialogue, colorful characters, and plenty of laughs.”

“Plenty of laughs.” You can do that with Christmas, of course, but try it with a comedy about the Prophet Muhammad … or the Holocaust. You know, make a “brainless movie” with “colorful characters, and plenty of laughs” about Auschwitz or something. But plan to start looking for a new job the next day.

In any case, Santa’s Slay hardly bothered me, unlike the way Gremlins did. Though Santa’s Slay is clearly patterned on Gremlins, beginning with the use of the song “Christmas (Baby, Please Come Home)” at the opening of both films, it’s a different film (perhaps because the filmmakers were untalented).

Throughout Santa’s Slay the mood mimics Gremlins, plus we have the same type of teenage protagonists, along with a quirky inventor in the family.

Beyond that, however, Santa’s Slay doesn’t come close to the subversion of the Christmas spirit the way Gremlins did. What it did, oddly, was begin to subvert Jews themselves, which really surprised me.

Here I’m going to go out on a limb and attempt a reading of Santa’s Slay worthy of Jay Dyer or Mark Brahmin. While I’ve never really understood Michael Hoffman’s “Revelation of the Method,” I sort of get that it means producers of messages deliberately reveal who they are and what they are doing. And in watching Santa’s Slay, I kept asking myself “Are the Jews making this movie revealing themselves as satanic”?

Yes, I know at this point you are going to cry “WHAT?!!!” But consider that when the credits begin to roll, we are treated to the wordplay of seeing the title first as Satan’s Slay then morph into Santa’s Slay. And throughout Goldberg certainly plays a satanic Santa. What really cements this view, however, is the fact that a central part of the story refers to two virgin births: that of Christ and that of Satan, with Santa Claus being the resulting issue.

Finally, though Goldberg’s Santa wreaks massive havoc and leaves a long trail of people quite dead, in the end a (Christian) angel prevails, and the Gentile teenage couple happily escapes, while satanic Santa is again remanded to the control of the angel. Jews had free rein in this film, yet it turned out to empower Christian Whites. Curious.

And with that happy turn of events, I’ll end this discussion by giving readers a heartwarming review of the 2015 Hallmark film, ‘Tis the Season for Love, which I called “a pro-White, pro-natal TV movie.”

Merry Christmas. I look forward to reader comments on modern Christmas films.

The Case for Secession

“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
Allen West, Chair, Texas GOP

Now that the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime and their Jewish entourage are measuring the curtains at the White House, it’s time to consider next steps.  As bad as things are for White America today, they are about to get a lot worse.  Physical, psychological, moral, and political threats hang over all our heads.  We are being dispossessed in our own nation.  The situation is grim but not hopeless.  We have options.

In the continental US, 24 states voted majority for Trump, including some of our most populous ones:  Texas, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, among them.  The 10 largest Trump states comprise over 100 million people, and all 24 combined are pushing 150 million.  This is a considerable block of people, with a considerable amount of power—political and otherwise.  If these people wish to retain a modicum of self-determination—not to mention self-respect—they will have to consider the strongest possible actions.  These actions include the possibility of literal secession from the United States.  It’s time to examine that option with all seriousness.

Biden’s Jewish-Diversity Retinue

First, let’s be clear about the threat posed by the incoming administration.  Even at this early point, it is clear that they hold an antipathy toward Whites, especially White males, and that they intend to either do as little as possible to support and represent White interests, or worse, to actively impede and harm those interests.  Of course, we don’t yet know what the actual policies will be, but we can make reasonable inferences based on who Biden has appointed to his Cabinet thus far.

Of his “top 16” picks to date, we find the following:  four White males (Brian Deese, Denis McDonough, Tom Vilsack, and Jake Sullivan); five Blacks, of whom four are women (Lloyd Austin, Marcia Fudge, Susan Rice, Cecilia Rouse, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield); one Indian woman (Neera Tander); one Hispanic man (Xavier Becerra)—and five Jews (Tony Blinken, Avril Haines, Ron Klain, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Janet Yellen).

Here we see a few points of interest.  First, there are no White women at all—given that Jews are not White, at least not in the relevant sense of identifying as part of the traditional White population of America.[1]  Second, Blacks and Jews each have more representation than Whites among the top 16, which is amazing in itself, given that Blacks (12.8%) and Jews (circa 2%) are distinct minorities in this country.  Third, at least one of the White men, Jake Sullivan, has proven himself to be remarkably philo-Semitic; his appointment “drew broad praise from Jewish leaders,” and his wife, Maggie Goodlander, worked extensively with influential Jews like Joe Lieberman, Stephen Breyer, and Merrick Garland (see here).  Fourth, we have an interesting “double-banger” in Mayorkas, who manages to be both Cuban and Jewish, thus checking two important boxes.  Fifth, by placing Yellen in charge of the US Treasury, Biden continues a long, nearly-unbroken line of Jews in charge of the top US financial institution.[2]

Furthermore, Biden has placed yet more Jews in important positions among his second tier.  These include the half-Jewish John Kerry (environmental advisor), Jared Bernstein (council of economic advisors), Rochelle Walensky (head of CDC), and Jeff Zients (Covid czar and “counsellor to the president”).

And then, of course, we have the infamous “family ties” among both Biden and Harris.  Biden’s three adult children all managed to acquire Jewish spouses:  Hunter married “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen in 2019, daughter Ashley married Howard Krein in 2012, and (the now-deceased) Beau married the Jewish dry-cleaning scion Hallie Olivere in 2002.  For her part, Kamala Harris married the Jewish lawyer Doug Emhoff in 2014, so we can be sure where her sympathies lie—as if there was any doubt.  Bottom line:  Look for lots of policies favoring Jews and Israelis, and little in the way of support for the 61% of Americans who are White.  Look for so-called open borders (i.e. very generous immigration and amnesty policies), for promotion of all kinds of ‘racial sensitivity’ awareness and training, and for increased attacks on “hate speech,” that is, on anything that the minority-laden Judeocracy decides that it doesn’t like.

What to do:  Independence!

Given all this, it is difficult to find a path forward for concerned Whites.  Their quality of life, their financial security, and their physical and mental health are all more or less guaranteed to decline over the coming four years.  As more Democratic-leaning minorities enter the country or are granted amnesty, and thus acquire voting rights, liberal-left anti-White policies will become more entrenched and more extreme.  This process will then accelerate over the next 25 years, as Whites become a numerical minority in the US—currently projected for around the year 2042.  Jewish influence will increase proportionately, given that they are by far the leading donors, and thus the leading wire-pullers, among the Democrats.

It is clear, then, that ordinary political means—the ballot box—will no longer suffice to promote White interests.  The political system is irrevocably slanted against Whites, and it will not change in our lifetimes; at least, not in the nation as it now exists.  Unless we consider radical structural change, anything like a present-day America is virtually certain to increasingly pander to Jewish and non-White interests, and therefore to suffer irrecoverable decline—socially, economically, culturally, intellectually, and morally. And it will become a very dangerous place for Whites as the coalition of the aggrieved wreaks vengeance.  Anything like the America that we knew in the 1950s and 1960s is done, over, finished.  The three seeds of its demise were planted many years ago:  in the African slave trade that made Blacks an astonishing 20% minority already in the 1770s; in the “all men are created equal” clause of the Declaration; and most of all, in the flood of Jewish immigrants circa 1900.  At that point, our fate was sealed.  It was only a matter of time.  Our end is now clearer than ever.  And it will not be a happy one for Whites.

As the South recognized long ago, the only hope for long-term salvation lies in political separation.  Had the Confederacy prevailed in the 1860s, the status of Southerners (and Northerners!) would be vastly higher than it is today.  It is one of the great tragedies of history that a power-mad Abraham Lincoln—a man who disliked Blacks and who actually, and correctly, sought to ship them back home to Africa[3]—decided to sacrifice thousands of his fellow countrymen simply to save “the nation.”  In the end, some 650,000 American soldiers on both sides died; this is more than the death toll from WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War combined.  And this is not counting thousands of innocent civilians and slaves who also died, nor the many thousands left with crippling and debilitating injuries.  Lincoln was, without doubt, the biggest war criminal in American history.  We continue to pay the price to this day.

GOP-Texas leader Allen West, a Black American, was correct, then, in his recent pronouncement that the anti-Biden (I hesitate to call them pro-Trump) states ought to separate from the corrupt morass of Washington DC’s America and form a new, better union.  West considers them to be the Constitution-loving states, which is perhaps correct—although he should be careful there.  In the following I will depict an ideal Constitution for a new White republic — a Constitution that is, to be sure, far beyond the political sensibilities of the great majority of White Americans at the present time.

The core U.S. Constitution is a fairly useful document, but it is notably vague on who can vote and it is infinitely malleable via leftist machinations.  But at that time, in the 1780s, the vast majority of voters were White male landholders—which, tragically, allowed Jewish men to vote.  This problem must be fixed in the new nation that West envisions.  Also at first, as we know, women and Blacks could not vote.  As a new, White-friendly, anti-minority nation, this “new America” must certainly allow White women to vote, but it has no obligation to any minorities of any kind.  In fact, any clear-thinking and brave-hearted new nation would deny citizenship to all non-Whites: all Blacks, all Hispanics, all Asians, and all Jews.  It would end, and revoke existing, birthright citizenship.  All this is essential, if we want to get down to fundamental issues and to address the root causes of our present decay.  A properly-conceived and executed secession movement can address all these issues in a single stroke.

Some Open Questions

But there are many logistical problems here, obviously.  One is the matter of which states, precisely, would compose this new America.  As I mentioned at the outset, there were 24 Trump-voting states, comprising some 150 million people.  Further, with the exception of Alaska, they happen to be geographically contiguous, meaning that, in theory, they could unify and create a connected, single nation—one that would chop the remaining US into three or four separate blocks; but that’s their problem.  Additionally, we can well imagine that portions—perhaps the rural areas—of several nearby states would also like to join this newly-emergent nation.  Eastern and northern California, eastern Oregon and Washington, southern Illinois, Virginia south of the DC metro area, and parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, among others, may well choose to secede from their own state and join the “constitution-lovers.”  We can easily imagine the combined numbers approaching 200 million people in all.

Then there are further issues.  Given that Jews of all types will be violently opposed to this idea, we have to take into consideration the size of the Jewish population in each of these states.  Among the 24, Florida is the outlier; it has a large Jewish population, comprising around 4% of the total.  Of the remaining 23, only two (Ohio and Missouri) are over 1%, and of the rest, many are under 0.5%.  Consequently, Florida is unlikely to go along with a new, constitution-loving, pro-White nation.  Perhaps they will have to go it alone.

Along the same lines, large Hispanic populations, especially in Texas and Florida, will pose problems for a pro-White nation. But with significantly less clout than Jews, and without a Jewish lobby actively defending them, Hispanics will be out of luck.  Perhaps they will find it in their own best interests to return to Mexico or Latin America—places that would welcome their relatively advanced education, skills, and comparative wealth.

There is a third problematic group, and that is Christian Zionists.  If it’s true that up to 25% of American adults consider themselves “evangelical Christians” and that up to 80% of these are some version of Zionist—meaning broadly that they support Jews and Israel for Biblical reasons—then this poses a potentially large issue, especially in the southern states.  But this is a regional issue, one requiring regional solutions.  Secessionists will have to play up the benefits of religion, freedom, and independence, and argue that this outweighs any sanctions against local Jews.

All these issues come to a head in a larger concern:  the problem of size.  It has long been recognized, since ancient times, that overly-large states are in for trouble.  Biologically-speaking, this makes sense.  Humans evolved over 2 million years in small hunter-gatherer bands of perhaps 50 to 100 people; for millennia, this was the size of our ‘state.’  Our emotional and rational psyches evolved to deal with groups of this size, and no more.  Larger groups are both unnatural and unhealthy; in larger societies, systemic corruption inevitably creeps in.

The ancient Greeks understood this intrinsically.  Plato said that the maximum, ideal society would consist of 5,040 households, or around 25,000 people—for the entire city-state.[4]  Hippodamus argued for an even smaller state of 10,000 citizens.[5]  Aristotle broadly concurred, saying that the ideal state must be “one and self-sufficing.”  In Book 7 of Politics, he elaborates:

[A] great polis is not to be confounded with a populous one.  Moreover, experience shows that a very populous state can rarely, if ever, be well-governed; since all states that have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. …  To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements.  For none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. …  In like manner, a state when composed of too few is not, as a state ought to be, self-sufficing; when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, as a nation may be, it is not a state, being almost incapable of constitutional government.  For who can be the general of such a vast multitude, or who the herald, unless he has the booming voice of a Stentor? 

               A state, then, only begins to exist when it has attained a population sufficient for a good life in the political community: it may indeed, if it somewhat exceeds this number, be a greater state.  But, as I was saying, there must be a limit.  What should be the limit will be easily ascertained by experience.  For both governors and governed have duties to perform; the special functions of a governor to command and to judge.  But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong.  When the population is very large, they are manifestly settled at haphazard, which clearly ought not to be.  Besides, in an over-populous state, foreigners and aliens will readily acquire the rights of citizens, for who will find them out?  Clearly then the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the purposes of life, and can be taken in at a single view.  (Book 7.4; italics added)

Remarkable insight, and utterly appropriate for the present day.

More recently, social theorists like Leopold Kohr, Ivan Illich, and E. F. Schumacher have also persuasively argued for smaller states.  Kohr suggests that, under modern, technological conditions, the maximum size for a well-governed and rational state is perhaps 10 million people.[6]  Say what you will about the small European nations today, but if nothing else, they are, for the most part, rationally governed; generally speaking, they “work”.[7]  And their smallness and ethnic homogeneity play a large part in their success.

This all helps to explain, first, the insanity of trying to manage a present-day America of 330 million people.  Three hundred million Gandhis would be ungovernable, let alone the present American mish-mash.  Second, it suggests that Allen West’s “new America” of perhaps 150 million is likewise far too big.  Texas alone is 30 million people; it really ought to become its own nation-state.  Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, all over 10 million, could easily be their own nation-states.  The smaller US states might fruitfully band together.  Ultimately, the 24 “Trump states” could form five or ten independent nations, which might then organize a local American confederation of some sort, to advance their collective interests—but without surrendering local sovereignty.  Five or ten small, independent, pro-White nations would further allow for a fair amount of social and political experimentation, yielding successes that could be transferred to the others.  And diverse states would be harder to undermine by any potentially-resurgent Jewish Lobby—just as a unified European Union is much easier to corrupt than 27 independent nations.

So This Means War!

“Yes,” says the critic, “all fine and good.  But the mighty US military will come in and crush any budding secession movement.  You haven’t a prayer against them.”  Yes and no.  A single movement by a single state might be squelched, but simultaneous movements across the nation would be much harder to address.  We have to understand that our federal government is actually much weaker than it appears, at least when it comes to internal disruption.  We can bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, but a “CHAZ” microstate in downtown Portland carries on for months, run by nothing more than a handful of degenerate anarchists.  Black Lives Matter lunatics managed weeks of looting and burning because they were a diversified, incorrigible, lawless band, working in several locations simultaneously.  “Oh, but BLM and CHAZ had the implicit support of the Democratic power elite.”  Fine—but a multi-state secession effort would have the implicit support of many in the Republican power elite.  For them, there is much to be gained.  Lots of new states mean lots of new presidents, new governments, and new institutions (imagine: new universities not dominated by a Jewish intellectual class!).  Plenty of new opportunities for business, charities, religious groups, academia—the possibilities are immense.

Still, we have to be honest.  It could come down to war, at least in some form, and many in the military would doubtless support the secession.  We need not worry about cruise missiles raining down on Dallas or Columbus, or tanks rolling through the Indiana plains, but we can imagine federal troops being compelled to take some sort of action.  Well, then—defend yourself.  Thus it has always been.  As I’ve argued in the past, if a few thousand low-IQ Afghans can hold the US military at bay for 20 years, then a few million motivated Whites can do much more.  After all, those unwilling to fight are those undeserving to win anything.  We would do well to recall what Nietzsche said about liberalism and the struggle for freedom; I quote him at length:

My conception of freedom.  The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it—what it costs us.  I shall give an example.  Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions.  Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic—every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them.  Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization. …

               For what is freedom?  That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself.  That one maintains the distance which separates us.  That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself.  That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself.  Freedom means that the manly instincts that delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.”  The human being who has become free—and how much more the spirit who has become free—spits on the contemptible type of well-being, that dreamt of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, Englishmen, and other democrats.  The free man is a warrior.

How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples?  According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top.  The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude.  This is true psychologically if, by “tyrants,” are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; the most beautiful type: Julius Caesar.  This is true politically too; one need only go through history.  The peoples who had some value, attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect.  Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong.  First principle: one must need to be strong—otherwise one will never become strong.

Those large hothouses for the strong—for the strongest kind of human being that has so far been known, the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice—understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand it: as something one has or does not have, something one wants, something one conquers.[8]

Do we really want to be free?  Do we want to be strong?  Do we have the courage to be strong?  I believe we do.  I believe that White Americans—at least, some core segment of this group—will find it in themselves to take the reins, to fight, and consequently “to force the will of millennia upon new tracks” (to quote Nietzsche once again).  Now is the time to act.  We need to hit them where it hurts.  And I can promise you, the American Judeocracy fears nothing more than a widespread, pro-White secession movement; it is their greatest nightmare.  Let’s work to make it come true.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com


[1] As I wrote recently:  “Let me make this as clear as possible:  Jews are not White—not in any relevant sense.  Jews are White like Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolezal are Black; that is, only to the extent that it serves their interests to deceive.  Yes, Jews’ skin tone matches ours, but that is merely an unfortunate and superficial fact of biology.  To further obscure the issue, they use plastic surgery to hide the nose and to minimize the uniquely repulsive effects of Jewish aging.  This allows them to circulate in White society unnoticed.  But they are not White.  Neither are Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, nor any other light-skinned Arabs or Middle Easterners.  ‘White’ refers only to the indigenous people of Europe, Ukraine, and Western Russia.  Jews are not White.”

[2] The current officeholder is the Jew Steven Mnuchin.  For a brief further discussion, see my book Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019: 140-142).

[3] See “The Great Emancipator and the Issue of Race” (here).  Also, CNN recently reported that the nation of Ghana issued a call to Black Americans to “come home” to Africa—a great idea for all concerned.

[4] See Laws, Book 5 (737c-744e).

[5] As mentioned by Aristotle, in Politics II.8 (1267b).

[6] See his fascinating book The Breakdown of Nations (1957/2012).

[7] Yes, we all know that Greece is a basket case.  There are always exceptions.  But most small European nations provide exceptionally high qualities of life, and in this sense, they work for their people.

[8] Twilight of the Idols, chap. 11, sec. 38.

Demographic Damnation: How Leftism Lies to Open the Borders

If you like books that are both entertaining and intelligent, here’s some advice that’s been good for two centuries and more: read The Monk. Written by a highly gifted teenager called Matthew Lewis and first published in 1796, this greatest of Gothic novels sparkles with wit and wisdom. Among much else, it contains one of the cleverest illustrations of a perennial theme: that evil wins its way by lies. Satan seduces before he strikes, appearing in disguise until he can reveal his true ugly nature.

Enchanted by Evil

The titular monk of the novel, a pious but flawed Spanish abbot called Ambrosio, is seduced by evil to his own damnation. When a false friend summons Satan on Ambrosio’s behalf, the abbot is fooled by a clever disguise. Satan appears as a beautiful seraph with dazzling white limbs and “silken locks.” He is “surrounded by clouds of rose-coloured light” and wafted by delicious perfumes. Ambrosio is “enchanted at a vision so contrary to his expectations” and gazes on “the Spirit with delight and wonder.” (The Monk, vol. 2, ch. 4)

Early edition of The Monk by Matthew Lewis

If Satan had appeared in his true ugly form, Ambrosio would have been repelled and would have left the path to damnation. Instead, Ambrosio is seduced and led further into mortal sin. But when Satan is finally certain of his prey, he casts off all disguise. Summoned by Ambrosio alone, he appears amid “sulphurous whirl-winds” and in “all that ugliness which since his fall from heaven had been his portion.” He is black-skinned, sharp-clawed and menacing, and his hair consists of “living snakes” that writhe with “frightful hissings.” (The Monk, vol. 3, ch. 5)

Rosy visions of racial harmony

Now Ambrosio sees the ugly truth, but it is too late by then. He has been fooled at every step and will shortly be dragged off to damnation. Well, that’s a Gothic novel from 1796, but I can’t help being reminded of modern Western politics. In the recent past, Whites were seduced by the Left with rosy visions of racial harmony and culturally enriched societies. For example, many millions of Whites voted for the well-spoken, mild-mannered Barack Obama in the sincere hope that he would create a post-racial, rainbow America where state-imposed White guilt and state-encouraged Black grievance melted away, and everyone finally “just got along.”

Enter the Church of the Damned

In return for their good-will, those White Obama-voters got Black Lives Matter and an intensification of anti-White pandering, propaganda and crime. The leftist seduction is ending and leftism has begun to throw off its disguise. Whites are no longer being offered post-racial redemption, but accused of innate depravity. In other words, Satan has stopped wafting perfume and started spewing sulphur. At American Renaissance, Gregory Hood has described the shift from seduction to damnation in an excellent essay called “Anti-Racism: The Church of the Damned.” He writes that “Anti-racism is a church with no salvation. To be white is to be counted among the damned, no matter what you do.” White America is under assault by an anti-White “death cult” whose leftist high-priests are “preaching an eternal white guilt that must be eternally expiated.”

That leftist death-cult has risen on a tide of non-White immigration into America and other Western nations. And when the Left was working to open the borders, it lied about what it was doing. For example, Kevin MacDonald has shown how the 1965 Immigration Act that opened America’s borders to non-Whites was the culmination of a decades-long campaign by ethnocentric Jews to dilute (and eventually destroy) America’s White Christian majority. But, just as Satan did not reveal his true nature or intentions to Ambrosio, the bill’s Jewish sponsors did not reveal their true nature or intentions to White Americans.

“The ethnic mix of America will not be upset”

Instead, they used gentile frontmen to shill for the bill and tell lies about the demographic damnation it would work on America. The Irish-American senator Teddy Kennedy responded to critics of the 1965 bill like this:

I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage. (See So Much for Promises — Quotes Re 1965 Immigration Act, VDare, 9th August 2006)

Teddy’s brother Senator Robert F. Kennedy issued similar lies, as did a host of other leftists and their right-wing dupes. In 1965 the Left was seducing White America; in 2020, the Left is proclaiming the damnation of White America. Whites are slated for dispossession and persecution as a despised caste by resentful non-Whites with officially approved grudges.

The blatantly sentimental and dishonest graphic novel Illegal (2017)

But seduction and lies are still being used by the Left, as you can see in a recent graphic novel for children called Illegal (2017). The title is ironic and comes from a famous quote by the Jewish activist Elie Wiesel about illegal migrants: “No human being is illegal.” Written by two Irish Whites, Eoin Colfer and Andrew Donkin, and illustrated by the Italian White Giovanni Rigano, Illegal tells “the story of [the Black brothers] Ebo and Kwame and their tortuous journey from North Africa to seek a new life in Europe.” In other words, it’s propaganda for open borders and the demographic damnation of Europe. No wonder it won first prize in the category “Best Books for Kids and Teens” at New York Public Library and in the category “Best Fiction for Older Readers” at Chicago Public Library in 2018. Leftists like to think of themselves as sophisticated thinkers, but Illegal panders to their true nature as reality-denying narcissists. In reality, for example, most of those seeking “refuge” in Europe are arrogant young men of prime crime-committing and rape-gang-forming age.

Big-eyed, button-nosed Ebo wants you to help him

In the fantasy of Illegal, however, the hero is a pre-pubescent boy called Ebo, whose “big eyes, chubby cheeks and button nose” might have been drawn straight from a scientific article entitled “How cute things hijack our brains and drive behaviour” (2016). Yes, Ebo does have a tall, strongly built post-pubescent brother called Kwame, but guess what? Kwame is drowned while crossing the Mediterranean and Ebo has to complete his “torturous journey” alone. In short, the graphic novel is blatantly sentimental and dishonest. And it raises an uncomfortable question. Is it a coincidence that two Irishmen are behind such lying propaganda, just as the two Irish Kennedy brothers shilled for the 1965 immigration bill in America?

“Help me, White Saviours!” Ebo’s big eyes gaze upward

Unfortunately, it’s not. As a resentful, anti-WASP minority, Irish Catholics have been useful allies to the hostile Jewish elite in both America and Britain, paralleling the role of resentful, anti-Russian minorities like Georgians and Latvians in the Jew-controlled Soviet Union. The Bolshevik Revolution and its forerunner in 18th-century France are further examples of how the Left issues seductive lies before revealing its true ugly nature. In both France and Russia, revolutionaries promised “Liberté! Égalité! Fraternité!,” then created mass-murdering tyrannies.

Profiting from hate: The smug, self-righteous Irish authors and Italian illustrator of Illegal want to assure you that they are more moral than you

But leftists have shrunk in intellectual stature and ambition since the days of Robespierre and Lenin. Books like Illegal and Ibram X. Kendi’s Anti-Racist Baby are not serious and minutely reasoned in the fashion of Marx’s Das Kapital (1867). Modern leftists have abandoned intellect for emotion, as you can see in Illegal. The images of cute little Ebo are intended to trigger primitive brain-circuits and by-pass the intellect. A team of psychologists explain it like this in a study of cuteness: “Babies are designed to jump to the front of the queue — our brain-processing queue, that is. They get ahead of everything else going on in our minds, which makes them difficult to ignore. They also grab our attention even before we have time to recognise that they are babies. They do it by being cute[,] with their big eyes, chubby cheeks and button noses.”

Ibram X. Kendi’s Anti-Racist Baby

The distressed faces of women and children are also “designed to jump to the front of the brain-processing queue,” which is why leftists use non-White women and children so often in their dishonest reporting on the migrant flood. But I’ve often thought that leftists’ concern for non-Whites is related to their concern for animals and involves the same emotion circuits in the brain. For example, compare the three images below, taken from leftist propaganda-outlets like the Guardian:

Three distressed female faces from leftist propaganda

The images are intended to appeal to the same irrational leftist sentimentality, which takes a maternalistic, de-haut-en-bas attitude both towards human migrants, seen above, and towards “Xita, a Rondon’s marmoset” hit by a car as it fled forest-fires in Brazil in October 2020. And in fact, the migrant woman on the top right, clutching an overweight baby, was also fleeing a fire, this time in a migrant-camp on the Greek island of Lesbos in September 2020.

Seeking power, feeding narcissism

Britain is many hundreds of miles from Lesbos, but the Guardian approvingly reported that “Pressure is mounting on the UK government to take in some of the thousands of asylum seekers left without shelter following a devastating fire at Europe’s largest migrant camp on the Greek island of Lesbos.” These mostly adult male “asylum seekers” are from the least progressive and most misogynistic and homophobic cultures on Earth, but leftists don’t care. As I’ve often pointed out, leftists are interested in winning power and feeding their own narcissism, not in understanding the world or improving the lives of their supposed objects of concern.

And how do leftists win power and feed their narcissism? They lie, as you can see above. Teddy Kennedy claimed that “the ethnic mix” of America would “not be upset” by the 1965 Immigration Act. He was lying. Eoin Colfer and friends have portrayed migrants as big-eyed, button-nosed poppets in Illegal. They are also lying. And leftist lies are carrying the West towards demographic damnation just as surely as Satan’s lies carried Ambrosio to literal damnation in The Monk.

The Political Theology of White Guilt: Trump as a Threat to the EU’s Post-WWII Narrative

The presidential postelection period unfolding now in the US is having a big impact on the political class in Europe. Historically speaking this is nothing new. Every politician in Europe knows that any major political change in the US is bound to have, the day after, an effect on his own decision-making policy and likely determine the time span of his career. This mode of mandatory pro-American mimicry among European politicians has been playing out in full force since 1945.

Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the mainstream media in Europe, seconded by EU high officials, with a very timid exception of Poland, Hungary and Slovenia, are piggybacking on US media outlets in a joint effort to unseat Trump and his legacy. The German political class, with Chancellor Merkel at the top of the EU System, is at the forefront of this anti-Trump pro-Biden mimicry.

The good news for some — and probably the bad news for others — is that both in the USA and Europe there is a rising divide between the rulers and the ruled, with a good chance of pitting the one against the other, with civil unrest becoming a highly likely scenario — Trump or Biden notwithstanding.  Not just nationalist parties of all stripes in Europe, but more and more average citizens, due also to bizarre and ever-changing Covid19 confinement regulations, are increasingly becoming suspicious of System decrees, no longer taking at a face value the palaver about tolerance and a multicultural shining future.  Many people in Europe like Trump’s words — more by default, and less by their knowledge of how the American electoral system works.

It must be pointed out that Trump was and still is the American exception to the rule of the post-WWII global liberal System. Predictably, Trump’s lambasting the mainstream media and its mirror image, the Deep State, does not square at all with the post-WWII liberal or communist antifascist and postcolonial narrative which all White Europeans and Americans have been subjected to since 1945.  In contrast to America, however, European nations have a very slim margin of political maneuvering, which is largely due to their former colonial, authoritarian, totalitarian and antiliberal past.  Consequently, European conservative and nationalist-minded politicians can only offset the burden of their past and escape the haunting shut-up word ‘fascism’ through their penitent behavior and through constant self-flagellating sermons on White Man’s Guilt. This self-effacing behavior translates today in a massive import of young non-European migrants with all of Europe rapidly becoming a giant hospice of take-a-knee repentant Whites.

The masochistic White Man mindset can be directly traced to the post-WWII Auschwitz political theology designated not just as deterrent for the defeated Germany, but also as a warning sign for former US and UK victors. Having this in mind, any tentative endorsement at this stage of Trump-like policies by a putative high EU politician means his/her running the risk of being accused of fascist or revisionist sympathies. It is a kiss of death in his/her career.

In order to grasp the fawning conduct of European leaders toward the System, or let’s call it the Deep State embedded in the East Coast of the US, one must always put things into a larger historical perspective. With his critical remarks about the mainstream media and his anti-immigration rhetoric, Trump seriously damaged the System narrative and along the way raised, without even realizing it, some disturbing questions about the legitimacy of the World Order established in the aftermath of WWII.

In Europe the System — i.e., the Deep State — has its major outlet in Germany. Being the heartland of Europe, Germany after 1945 was preordained to serve as a role model for all future EU member states. Today the German government functions therefore as the loudest mouthpiece of anti-Trump and pro-Biden rhetoric. Given Germany’s neurotic process of post-WWII nation-state building, such penitent behavior is comprehensible.  Germany was designed as a Europe’s new shining example of a successful Allied-Antifa social and racial multicultural engineering, which has spawned by now hundreds of thousands of self-censored, servile and atoning politicians and academics across the board, all of them deadly afraid that any minor dissident voice of theirs could result in their removal from the public scene. In day-to-day contemporary politics, German politicians and academics must be therefore constantly on a high alert and they must endeavor, metaphorically speaking, to be more Catholic than the Pope, i.e., more the American Biden lookalikes than Biden and his crew themselves. The same goes for all non-German European politicians, albeit to a lesser extent.

The toxic words fascism and racism serve today as an ideal tool of self-censorship in Germany, also explaining why Germany has been over recent decades, and particularly over the last decade, the  most fervent advocate of its self-destructive multicultural policy manifesting itself in its constantly importing non-European migrants.

Another example of Germany’s self-denial: Just recently the German minister of foreign affairs Heiko Maas, in typical German preemptive atonement mode, and in in order to counter any speculations that Germany might someday depart from the embedded post-WWII New World Order, issued the following statement: “I will proceed against the extreme right-wing venom for our democracy. “  (Ich will gegen rechtsextremes Gift für unsere Demokratie vorgehen).

Such a show of German and European atonement is a natural and logical outcome of the Allied brainwashing process that has been going on in the media and higher education, not just in the East, but also in the West since 1945.   Hence, if Trump keeps accusing the mainstream media and the Deep State of political dishonesty in slanting coverage and covering up a stolen election, it inevitably raises the question as to how truthful, or rather how fake the whole System and its historical narrative have been over the last seventy years. Trump was a threat to the entire post-WWII narrative of the West.

The former Russian anticommunist dissident and writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote long ago that we “should not live the Communist Lie.”  Well, time seems to be ripe to raise the same question about the Lie of the Liberal System.